Is eternity outside of time? If it is, then when Time/Universe had a beginning, something outside of time caused Time to exist, hence a change of events preceded Time. Time would then be subordinate to a change or change in events/being or becoming, whichever you prefer. (See the 4:40 mark of the video.)

Or maybe the first question is, rather, does eternity exist?

Time is an abstract concept based on change.
Math is an abstract concept based the order found in the universe.
The concept of time is meaningless, useless without change as is math without order..
Maths would likely never have been developed without the regularity and order found in nature. — prothero

Prothero!

Generally, no exceptions taken. However, what would you consider your definition of order to be.. ?

We also know math can describe the structures of material world, but what about the non-material world (consciousness) or even math itself? Would it make sense to ask, can math describe math ( can math describe itself)?

I'm afraid we are back to trying to explain the nature of existence...

If God is eternity (outside of time), and time was created at the big bang, there must have been events/change prior to the creation of time which caused time itself.

Otherwise time becomes merely conceptual, an abstraction which we create through observations of change. — Metaphysician Undercover

MU!

I think that is what Prothero and I are saying, which is time, is merely a conceptual abstract. Time is subordinate to change. Think of it like music. The sounds of music itself came before music theory.

Or if you like, think of it as mathematics. The universe existed before mathematical genius.

Time and math are arbitrary abstracts that humans discovered, and also helped develop. Both of which are discoveries and uncoveries of existence, as it were. The only assignment we can make to those is the 'subordination' of the two.

NICE!

That reminds me of this thought experiment:

Imagine someone coming to you declaring or proclaiming " I saw God yesterday and he said... ." How would or should, one react? Would the general inclination be that of disbelief or something else... .

Through logic, how should one go about justifying such an experience (?).

My interpretation: Schop was ahead of his time in this area of metaphysical Will (in nature). He covered a lot of territory starting with Spinoza's ideas about God in nature. And not only does it (the Will) metaphorically parallel with one's own stream of consciousness (a term coined by William James) where thoughts occur at random during everydayness, but also speaks to a 'participatory universe' as described more by modern day physicists John Wheeler (and Einstein) relative to QM.

The following short video is just a taste of Wheeler himself describing how QM is a dynamic (not static) participatory process (much like how actual observation of quantum particles change when we view them) which would argue for an element of Panpsychism in nature. Also, he used some practical experiments like the infamous game of 20-questions and the more scientific experiment of the 'double-slit', where he hints at a type of intrinsic consciousness in nature ( see video).

Consider one practical application (in laymen's terms-the human condition), where you could certainly make a case for the phenomenon relating to the law of attraction and how/why sentient human beings might be drawn to each other, through our volitional existence.

if you believe all living things are conscious then of course there can be consciousness after brain death since lots of living things have no brains — dazed

Is the idea of metaphysical will, the same as consciousness in all of nature?

do you believe all living things are conscious? — dazed

What, then, is the result, if the answer is yes?

at a certain point the brain gets complex enough to create consciousness
but this of course means that there can be no consciousness without brain activity
so there can not be consciousness after brain death — dazed

How is that possible?

Great question, and lots of good responses so far... .

I think of imagination being much like our sense of wonderment. In the case of Kant and/or Einstein, to proclaim that all events must have a cause, invokes or conveys our innate sense of wonderment/imagination. Similarly, we can only imagine within our consciousness (imagination) such causation, yet it is that which propels scientific discovery beyond reason. So we need imagination and wonder to move a thought or physical theory forward.

Imagination is an innate metaphysical reality from conscious existence. Or better said; how real is imagination?

Time is an abstraction from the "continuous creative becoming" which is reality.
Time itself does not exist, change (becoming) is the fundamental nature of reality. — prothero

Well said!!

Time, like mathematics, is yet another abstract. An abstract truth(?). But time can also be an (as in time zones, clocks, calendars, sun dials, etc.), arbitrary method of measurement.

Perhaps another question is; like math, did both math and time have an independent existence where human's just stumble upon its truth from time to time through such discovery, or is it a human invention?

All of this seems paradoxical... . How can Time be an arbitrary human invention, yet unreasonably effective like math in describing/measuring the universe(?). Yet mathematics is a truth that never changes with time - the paradox.

In defining time, change is the underlying fundamental nature of reality ( as you said) that I think is the only thing consistent. And the only other thing consistent might be that it seems both time and math are abstract truth's, of sorts?

The nature of reality is indeed quite a mystery.

MY!

Maybe try re-writing the conditional statement... .

Consider using the words 'only if' in order to identify it as a necessary condition. Otherwise, for example in contrast, you'd be using the rules of inference or Modus Tollens.

Examples of Modus Tollens:

If the cake is made with sugar, then the cake is sweet.
The cake is not sweet.
Therefore, the cake is not made with sugar.

If the dog detects an intruder, the watchdog will bark.
The dog did not bark.
Therefore, no intruder was detected by the dog.

We can infer those to be true, but not necessarily true, since the cake can be made with artificial sweetener, and there may have been an intruder that the dog did not detect. And so, similarly, (as HH pointed out) there could have been dew on the grass prior to it raining which made it wet.

And Harry is right, it is how we use language that presents these kinds of difficulties (the liars paradox/self referential statements, etc.).

Are you trying to make some sort of distinction between necessary conditions (from nature) and logical necessity (from a priori reasoning)?

Not gonna lie, this class kicked me in the ass a little. I enjoy logic, but sometimes it is hard to grasp. So basically what you're saying is, if I have

If P then Q...
In order for Q to be correct, P must also be correct

Is that equivalent? — Justin Peterson

Justin!

No, that's basically conditional logic or the logic of conditionals, probabilities, truth tables etc.. Logical possibility/necessity is the formal-logical consistency about the terms of a proposition.

The common example of logical necessity that I like to use is the proposition or statement:" There is at least one true proposition." Call this proposition A. Is A necessarily true? Suppose I say that A is false. Call that proposition B: "A is false." But if A is false, so is B, because A is a proposition. And if A is false there are no true propositions. So A has to be true. It is therefore logically impossible for there to exist no true propositions.

The now consists of everything, past, present, and future. What we perceive as time is just the idea of the computation of all things — Justin Peterson

Are you suggesting that time, then, appears to be somewhat illusionary (when we cognize, or otherwise our so-called perception of time itself, i.e., time zones, time dilation, relativity, etc... .)?

That was a proposition that was given to me as extra credit on an exam in my philosophy class, what followed is my extended response.


— Justin Peterson

That is why it is argued that the past and the future do not exist, only the now. — Justin Peterson

Consider that during cognition, when one cognizes, does that require apperception-subconsciousness- of past and future tense (to produce conscious thought)? If it does, how 'big' is the present tense (or as you said, the "now")?

Justin, regarding the former question, the consequences is/are known as logical necessity, or logically necessary truths. For example the statement: there exists at least one true proposition.

Wigner sums up his argument by saying that "the enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious and that there is no rational explanation for it — wikpedia

Agreed! Particularly since mathematics confers no Darwinian biological advantages!

With information comes newness
In the current age as such
When learning for the first time
The illusion seems as much

Learning comes yet again
From reading the same thing twice
Time then, must have a meaning
As we are never the same men

Thanks man. I am learning to handle it better nowadays. I was never allowed by my parents to talk about sex or intimacy when I was a child. I think that damaged or actually inprented a slanted, crooked view on openness about them. — ttjordy

Yep! I remember in grade school one of the kids said to me that their parents wake them up in the morning before school butt naked. When he said that to me, I laughed, and thought it was very strange. Looking back it couldn't be further from the truth. I wish my parents had woke me up nude.

How about this; it was and would have been a teaching moment without having to teach!

New to this thread, wondering if the OP is sexually active — csalisbury

...and... ?

am reporting on the societal norm. I actually find it normal for both sexes to be as open.
10h — ttjordy

Yep! I think women are finally coming out of their shell and speaking their mind to other men which is a good thing. For years they just kept it among themselves... .

Both men and women want good sex!

Yes, and that's why ttjordy was wondering how open one's discussions should be. — Bitter Crank

Yes, agreed!

Or, they bottle up dissatisfactions until it becomes anger then rage and finally they blow up, and a bad time is had all round. — Bitter Crank

Indeed. I can't tell you how many people both men and women who have complained to me... . It must have something to do with the notion over why human's have intrinsic fears... .

not always been as communicative as I should have been. I don't really know why -- At times I just wanted to get into my shell and stay there. I'm kind of a loner, sort of introverted. The racket between my ears was about all I could manage sometimes — Bitter Crank

Yep, I get that. I used to be more of an introvert but when I went into my midlife crisis, having to manage people and getting back into performing music, I was forced to embrace extroversion in order to help achieve success in both those areas of my personal and professional life.

Wilhelm Reich had some excellent observations in social psychology, particularly about the psychology of fascism, if I remember correctly,, but his theory that one could accumulate psychic energy in his Orgone Box falls into the bullshit category. Too bad. It would be nice if one could. — Bitter Crank

Yep. Although a bit eccentric, I think he was onto something. We now know having regular orgasms can help cure a lot of ailments including breast and prostate cancer. I would have loved to try the orgone box though! In principle, it seemed like initially he had good intentions. Good stuff Bitter!

Very, very well said Bitter!!!

Lots to unpack there, and plenty of lessons learned, as it were.

I do think yet another common theme emerges there namely a lack of communication of some sort, which is driving many of these behaviors.

I think we can all relate to stories relative to human beings not being able to express their sexual dissatisfactions with their partners. It certainly doesn't justify an affair, however, some people ( introverts ) are unable to express their wants and needs and sometimes act out on their dissatisfactions... .

And of course often times we hear about how religious dogma and associated so-called paradigm's suppressing/repressing expression... very sad indeed.

That's what confuses me. Should I just be myself and utter the words and have a chance at a stronger bond(hehe possibly getting laid) or should I follow most others and shut my mouth that aren't really honest and open about it. I found a way to deal with it. Feel the ambience, try a few jokes, if people around me are not expressive and shutout and not open about other things, the chance is high they won't care for my sexual fantasies.

I should add, I don't spontaneously tell my fantasies. But when a friend says: 'uh that's disgusting and sick when people have that fantasy/fetish. ' I reply: 'I actually find it hot and enjoyable.' — ttjordy

I believe that's a healthy outlook and approach. Seems appropriate, depending upon your so-called audience.

As long as you are true to yourself (about your sexuality), it seems like a virtuous thing that should be celebrated and nurtured. And sure, use common sense, and temper your enthusiasm where appropriate... .

I heard the pubic was political. — Bitter Crank

Yep, ask Bill Clinton that one !

Sort of begs yet another question about human sexuality. Why do people have affairs?

Freud apparently had some theories:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psychoanalysis-unplugged/201805/7-things-about-sex-and-love-sigmund-freud-nailed

If we're talking about talking about sex, I don't find it distasteful when people do, unless it's exaggerated/bragging and their past partners are the butt of every bragging joke. — fdrake

This is the important distinction that people fail to make. Glad you parsed it!

So, for example, if I'm having lunch with a female friend, I don't begin the conversation by telling her how much I love anal sex (or whatever) because that to me would be inappropriate. And it's inappropriate because of the likelihood it would make her uncomfortable . — Baden

I've been with several women ( I'm divorced) and on the first date, they asked how big my penis was... . I must admit I was a bit startled, but was able to banter back. I took it as a fun-loving gesture/question... .

At first, it was like "wow, this is what rock stars must be doing," but I suppose they are much younger and it matters more to them and it's part of a lifestyle that doesn't appeal to me. — Hanover

At some point, whether through years of experience with multiple partners, or intellectual reasoning, one can easily conclude that a search for the Stevie Windwood 'Higher Love' is something worth searching for... .

In other words, the mind, body, spirit connection makes sex that much better. But of course, you already knew that.

What's the problem? — jamalrob

Sexual dysfunction from lack of communication (about wants, needs, desires, etc.) in the context of human nature.

Should we openly explore sexual matters so as to help people achieve satisfying sex lives free of anxiety and difficulty? Yes, that's why I excepted education and therapy. — jamalrob

Sure, fair enough. I think that's what is driving much of the OP concern. suggested that he/she desired to have a partner who he/she felt comfortable enough to "tell anything to". That would imply that he/she may or may not have a partner right now, but is nevertheless seeking guidance on how to broach those kinds of subjects/sexual topics with someone. And so the irony is that the person of concern needs a forum in which to express those intimate desires, needs, etc. in the form of open communication about same. What is the medium for such communication?

For example, say an individual is a virgin, but desires to have sex and raise a family. But maybe they are scared, ashamed or embarrassed over the act of procreation/sex, and that they have wild sexual fantasies. Well, what a wonderful thing to have, sexual fantasies, right? The person then has a choice to communicate to a therapist, a forum, friends, ex-lovers, etc. etc. The common theme is the need to express oneself and communicate these normal desires wants and needs.

And so the person who was taught to suppress and repress those naturally wonderful desires and needs for sexual expression, is yearning or reaching out for help until such time that they find their partner that they are really comfortable with. In the interim, they need to talk to someone.

That's sort of a simple scenario, but it's usually much more complicated. Sexual dysfunction is the cause of many, many, disaster's just waiting to happen, viz relationships. Many of which stem from childhood or otherwise old worn-out outdated paradigms associated with not talking freely about sex.

You might not agree that completely 'open discussion' is a healthy approach. And I might not a agree that limiting the sexual discussion to a therapist is the only way or method (or if parents are unwilling to discuss same). We need to celebrate this wonderful gift that we give to each other. What's the means to that end?

With all due respect, your comments and advice seem to be part of the problem and not the solution. It's an outdated paradigm. What about being old-school do you believe to be virtuous in this context?

In other words, you seem to be saying "keep those things in the closet; that's good for society". Does that sound intuitive and sophisticated about the expression of human nature/sexuality, or more like worrying about fears over your own truth concerning same?

I was wondering what you think is appropriate or perhaps even appreciated to be open about sex, sexual thoughts, fantasies etc. — ttjordy

I think we should be just as open about sex as discussing politics. Opinions do matter; the voices of change can make a difference. After all, isn't the reason why many human's get together is because it's all about Love, sex and procreation? I think Schop and Freud thought so... . Accordingly, Schopenhauer thought that if it were not for sex, men and women would hate each other.

Given the above, mysticism is, to my reckoning, just the emotional aspect of realization which is, unfortunately, not accompanied by any real understanding of anything at all. Mysticism, my interpretation of it, is like masturbation - you experience the ecstacy of ejaculation but you actually didn't have sex :chin: — TheMadFool

I once had a mystical experience
The likes of which were few
With practice makes perfect they say
In secret they only knew

So celebrate your secrete with earnest
Realize words are few
Maybe one day you'll reveal
That others like you too

Not to sound glib, but what is pleasure without pain? (What does that look like… .)

I realize it is easy to dichotomize everything, but...

I am suffering man. SO much suffering. I do not understand. — Shawn

Ok, you seem to have a level of self-awareness whereby it is causing you to introspect about your own happiness and lack thereof.

What is causing this (these are growing pains)? As I said, the good news is that you are apparently going through change/growing pains that is somewhat more acute than you have previously experienced. Are you searching for more; more of some thing, or less of some thing?

For instance, you are seemingly now becoming aware that Existentialism is depressing. Why?

The good news is, that there is a beginning. The genesis of this awareness inside of you. A re-birth of sorts.

Great post :up:

But can you have one without the other(?)

Proving we're benevolent, just, kind, and all that good stuff that you always knew we were. :halo: — Baden

I do think he should at least atone for his sins, against human kind!

No. An artist can paint or write music about feeling bad in order to describe and/or connect with reality (the human condition). Is that bad?

But the question remains, did you experience feeling good as a result of your experience of feeling bad? Would that then suggest we should embrace the feelings that are bad feelings because in turn it would cause us to feel good (cause and effect)?

Another common meme is that 'closed doors happen for reasons'. What are 'closed doors', bad feelings? (What leads us to seek good feelings.)

I submit that feeling bad can actually be good. It causes you to want to feel good. Yet feeling bad ,in itself, is indeed bad. Just like feeling good, in itself, is good.

The moment he gains these good feelings is the moment he has goodness in his life again. As you can see, my horrible, miserable struggles can never be good, valuable, or beautiful, even if the end result was the most powerful, amazing bliss for me. I'd just have to bear through those struggles until I gain the bliss. — TranscendedRealms

Good points. Consider then, in a paradoxical way (Zeno/Aristotle) or in the so-called reality of time illusion context, that there is 1) and interminable sensation or need to feel happy and 2) how fleeting is the moment of happiness/how long does feeling good last(?).

In contemplating item #1, normal cognition, as in our everydayness from our normal stream of consciousness, would suggest we are never truly happy, as once one need is satisfied, yet another need takes its place (Maslow).

In contemplating item #2, the parsing of past, present, future (Aristotle) uncovers the phenomenon of present tense being somewhat illusionary, relative to in this case, how fleeting the moment of feeling good really is... .

And so, how do we reconcile these fleeting moments of feeling good, with other moments of feeling bad? In other words, do we need feeling bad to define feeling good? If we do not know what feeling bad is, can there exist feeling good?

As a poor example, let us say that a drug addict takes drugs to feel good in order to avoid feeling bad. That interminable process seems complimentary to its end goal of feeling good. Now extend that to any other human phenomenon. The race car driver must race to feel good; the painter must paint to feel good, the lover must love to feel good, ad nauseum. And so when not feeling good during cessation of said activities, does one have a resulting feeling or experience of feeling bad? Can feeling bad then be required to feel good?

Maybe the question becomes, what does homeostasis look like (in the context of feeling good)… . Otherwise, your struggles in feeling bad were actually good for you. You gained knowledge on how to feel good.

Thoughts?

Also, during my miserable struggles, I've had horrible, agonizing, miserable feelings that motivated me to get psychological help. But, suffering like that was no way to live, which means there was nothing good or beautiful about my suffering, even though it motivated me to get help. The fact is, I was having a horrible experience, which means my suffering could only be horrible, regardless of how it motivated me. Even if it motivated me to change the world by discovering cures and inventing new technology, there'd still be nothing positive about my suffering. But, for those people who've been given cures and new technology, that would be a positive experience for them, since they're able to feel positive emotions. — TranscendedRealms

Have you considered the principle of Yin and Yang, where all things exist as inseparable and contradictory opposites, for example, female-male, dark-light, sun and rain and old-young (?). The two opposites of Yin and Yang attract and complement each other and, (as their symbol illustrates), each side has at its core an element of the other (represented by the small dots). Neither pole is superior to the other and, as an increase in one brings a corresponding decrease in the other, a correct balance between the two poles must be reached in order to achieve harmony.

So, we can't have happiness (or good feelings) without the existence of bad feelings and unhappiness. For instance, can we use 'bad feelings' to help us stay happy? (Or happy feelings to keep us feeling bad?)

I certainly agree that it's all about feelings. But my question is what value is there to have bad feelings or suffering, when we do not intend to seek or want same.